[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5400-5401]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 5400]]

LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE FOR A COOPERATIVE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION PROGRAM

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, April 3, 2001

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to 
authorize a program to help states, local governments, and private 
groups protect open space while enabling ranchers and other private 
landowners to continue to use their lands for agriculture and other 
traditional uses.
  The bill, entitled the ``Cooperative Landscape Conservation Act,'' is 
based on provisions that were passed by the House last year as part of 
the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (``CARA'') but on which the 
Senate did not complete action.
  I think the program that this bill would establish would be good for 
the entire country--and it would be particularly important for 
Colorado.
  In Colorado, as in some other states, we are experiencing rapid 
population growth. That brings with it rising land values and property 
taxes. This combination is putting ranchers and other landowners under 
increasing pressure to sell lands for development. By selling 
conservation easements instead, they can lessen that pressure, capture 
much of the increased value of the land, and allow the land to continue 
to be used for traditional purposes.
  That's why conservation easements are so important for our state. 
It's why the state and many local governments are interested in 
acquiring conservation easements on undeveloped lands. It is also why 
non-profit organizations like the Colorado Cattlemen's Agricultural 
Land Trust and the Nature Conservancy--to name just two of many--work 
to help ranchers and other property owners to make these arrangements 
and so avoid the need to sell agricultural lands to developers.
  I strongly support this approach. Of course, by itself it is not 
enough--it is still important for government at all levels to acquire 
full ownership of land in appropriate cases. But in many other 
instances acquiring a conservation easement is more appropriate for 
conservation and other public purposes, more cost-effective for the 
taxpayers, and better for ranchers and other landowners who want to 
keep their lands in private ownership.
  But while it is usually less costly to acquire a conservation 
easement than to acquire full ownership, it is often not cheap--and in 
some critical cases can be more than a community or a nonprofit group 
can raise without some help. That is where my bill would come in.
  Under the bill, the Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to 
provide funds, on a 50 percent match basis, to supplement local 
resources available for acquiring a conservation easement. For that 
purpose, the bill would authorize appropriation of $100 million per 
year for each of the next 6 fiscal years--similar to the amount that 
would have been authorized by the CARA legislation that the House 
passed last year.
  The bill provides that the Secretary would give priority to helping 
acquire easements in areas--such as Colorado--that are experiencing 
rapid population growth and where increasing land values are creating 
development pressures that threaten the traditional uses of private 
lands and the ability to maintain open space. Within those high-growth 
areas, priority would go to acquiring easements that would provide the 
greatest conservation benefits while maintaining the traditional uses--
whether agricultural or some other uses--of the lands involved.
  The bill would not involve any federal land acquisitions, and it 
would not involve any federal regulation of land uses--conservation 
easements acquired using these funds would be governed solely under 
state law.
  Mr. Speaker, the national government has primary responsibility for 
protecting the special parts of the federal lands and for managing 
those lands in ways that will maintain their resources and values--
including their undeveloped character--as a legacy for future 
generations. Regarding other lands, the challenge of responding to 
growth and sprawl is primarily the responsibility of the states and 
tribes, the local governments, and private organizations and groups--
but the federal government can help.
  This bill would provide help, in a practical and cost-effective way. 
For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching a summary of its 
main provisions.
  I also am attaching a recent article from the DENVER POST about how 
the Larimer Land Trust has helped ranchers near Buckeye, Colorado to 
assure that their lands, with their resources of habitat for a wide 
variety of wildlife and many geographic and cultural treasures, will 
remain undeveloped and will continued to be used for grazing and other 
agricultural uses. I think this article shows the importance of the 
program that would be established by the bill.

          DIGEST OF ``COOPERATIVE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION ACT''

  The bill is based on provision included in the House-passed 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) legislation of the 106th 
Congress. It would provide federal financial assistance to states, 
local government, Indian tribes, and private groups working to preserve 
open space by acquiring conservation easements.
  BACKGROUND: In Colorado and other rapidly-growing states, rising land 
values and property taxes are putting farmers and ranchers (and other 
landowners) under increasing pressure to sell their lands for 
development. By selling conservation easements instead, they can lessen 
that pressure, capture much of the increased value of the land, and 
allow the land to continue to be used for traditional purposes. The 
party acquiring the conservation easement would have an enforceable 
property right to prevent development.


                        What the Bill would Do:

  Program--The bill would establish the ``Cooperative Landscape 
Conservation Program,'' to be administered by the Department of the 
Interior. The program would provide grants to assist qualified 
recipients to acquire conservation easements.
  Funding--Bill would authorize appropriations of $100 million/year for 
fiscal years 2002 through 2007. Funds would be used for grants, would 
be on a 50 percent-50 percent matching basis, for purchase of 
conservation easements on private lands in order to provide wildlife, 
fisheries, open space, recreation, or other public benefits consistent 
with the continuation of traditional uses by the private landowners. Up 
to 10 percent of annual funds could be used by Interior Department to 
provide technical assistance.
  Priority--(1) Priority for grants would be to help acquire easements 
in areas where rapid population growth and increasing land values are 
creating development pressures that threaten traditional uses of land 
and the ability to maintain open space; (2) within those areas, 
priority would go for acquiring easements that would provide the 
greatest conservation benefits while maintaining traditional uses of 
lands.
  Eligibility Recipients--would be agencies of state or local 
government, tribes, and tax-exempt organizations operated principally 
for conservation.
  Enforcement--Only an entity eligible for a grant could hold and 
enforce an easement acquired with program funds; at time of 
application, state Attorney General would have to certify that an 
easement would meet the requirements of state law.


                      What the Bill Would NOT Do--

  Bill would NOT involve any federal land acquisition.
  Bill would NOT involve any federal regulation of land use.

                 [From the Denver Post, April 2, 2001]

                   Rancher's legacy to stay wide open

                         (By Coleman Cornelius)

       April 1, 2001--Buckeye--Chuck Miller gazed at his ranch 
     from under the brim of a battered felt cowboy hat. His cows 
     and their new calves lolled nearby, soaking in the sun. A 
     spring breeze swept over a rocky ridgeline, open grazing 
     land, an irrigated alfalfa field, a glittering lake.
       ``I never knew a day when I didn't want to ranch on my 
     own,'' Miller said as he recently surveyed his land in the 
     Buckeye community, 20 miles north of Fort Collins. ``I don't 
     ever remember when that wasn't my goal in life.''
       Miller, whose Sunnybrook Cattle Co., includes about 450 
     acres and about 100 Angus and Longhorn cattle, soon will mark 
     his 80th birthday. So he has pondered the future of his land 
     and has wondered whether his ranching lifestyle will continue 
     in fast-growing Larimer County, where the population swelled 
     by 35 percent in the past decade.
       Miller's gaze switched east. He nodded to a cluster of big, 
     new houses topping a distant hillside--a sign of development 
     bearing down on this ranchland that once seemed remote.
       ``If growth continues as it is now, this whole country will 
     be houses,'' he said.
       Earlier this year, the specter of development persuaded 
     Miller and the owners of two neighboring ranches to preserve 
     some of their ranchland in northern Larimer County. Working 
     with the Larimer Land Trust, the Buckeye ranchers have 
     protected 500 acres through conservation easements, meaning 
     the land can never be developed.
       It's not a lot of land in this rugged and breathtaking 
     territory, which is home to the county's largest cattle 
     ranches. In several cases, ranches in the area encompass more 
     than 10,000 acres, according to county records.
       Yet the newly protected acreage is significant, 
     conservationists said.
       That's in part because it represents a growing alliance 
     between ranchers and conservationists. These camps, often at 
     odds in

[[Page 5401]]

     the past, want to save open land and a way of life that has 
     waned as encroaching development has spawned tensions and has 
     ratcheted up land prices.
       ``It's really clear that if you want to protect Colorado's 
     open space, you've got to help ranchers and farmers stay on 
     the ground,'' said Alisa Wade, executive director of Larimer 
     Land Trust. ``If we don't start working together now it's 
     going to be too late.''
       The Buckeye ranchland is in the foothills of the Laramie 
     Mountains and is part of an ecological hinge between the 
     mountains and plains.
       It hosts a rich variety of plants and wildlife, including 
     deer, elk, pronghorns, bears, mountain lions, bobcats, 
     coyotes, raptors and rattlesnakes. The land also holds 
     geographic and cultural treasures, including fossilized 
     dinosaur tracks and American Indian artifacts. Some of the 
     West's first white settlers came through the area on the 
     Cherokee and Overland trails; Miller once found an oxen shoe 
     dropped by an animal pulling a pioneer's wagon.
       The conservation project is significant, too, because it is 
     a first step in what could become a vast stretch of protected 
     ranchland.
       ``The Buckeye is one of the last remaining regions of 
     large, contiguous ranchlands in Larimer County, so it's an 
     important piece of long-term ranching viability in the 
     county,'' Wade said.
       The Nature Conservancy of Colorado, which owns a 2,000-acre 
     preserve in the foothills of the Laramie Mountains, has 
     identified northern Larimer County as a priority area for 
     land conservation and contributed most of the money for the 
     Buckeye project. The organization's leaders hope other 
     ranchers will decide to preserve their land.
       ``We'd love to see some of those big ranches up there in 
     some kind of conservative program.'' said John Stokes, the 
     Nature Conservancy's northeast Colorado program manager.
       Conservation easements increasingly are used to preserve 
     valuable open lands, and the provisions vary from deal to 
     deal. But most of these legal agreements have one thing in 
     common: Acreage in a conservation easement has been stripped 
     of development rights and must remain open space forever.
       As part of the Buckeye project, the Larimer Land Trust paid 
     participating ranchers for the development rights on their 
     property. But because the ranchers believe in land 
     conservation, they accepted about 30 percent of the value of 
     those development rights and donated the remaining value, 
     Wade said.
       ``The value of their donation is about $400,000. It's a 
     significant donation,'' she said.
       The Larimer Land Trust, which negotiated the easements, 
     spent $234,000 on the Buckeye project, Wade said.
       The ranchers still own their property, and its agricultural 
     use--primarily for cattle grazing--will not change.
       Like other private landowners, the participating ranchers 
     may sell or bequeath their property. But the conservation 
     easements remain even when the land changes hands; new owners 
     cannot develop the protected property.
       That means the land's eventual sale price would be reduced. 
     And it assures the protected acreage, if used at all, would 
     be used for farming and ranching, Wade said.
       While the value of protected land drops, the ranchers have 
     pocketed some cash and will reap tax benefits from the 
     conservation easements. That's a satisfying financial trade-
     off, they said.
       But more satisfying for these ranchers is knowing their 
     land will remain undeveloped for the enjoyment of heirs or 
     other future owners, they said.
       ``I'm sure we could make much more money if we sold the 
     land for development, but we didn't want to do that,'' said 
     Kathy DeSmith, 60, who raises hay and cattle. She and her 
     ranching partner put 179 acres in an easement as part of the 
     conservation project.
       Miller, who protected 105 acres, said it pleases him to 
     watch his 8-year-old granddaughter ride horses, climb apple 
     trees, fish and wade in the creek on his ranch. He hopes 
     others will someday find the same carefree joys on his land.
       The rancher said he's been offered more than $1 million for 
     his property. But the money did not entice him or his three 
     children, especially because they knew development would 
     almost certainly follow, Miller said.
       ``What would I do with a big pile of money, living in town 
     with nothing to do? That doesn't suit me at all,'' he said. 
     ``I don't make a great deal of money--cash--but look at what 
     I've got.''
       Edie Yates, 53, who with her husband owns the 530-acre Park 
     Creek Ranch, agreed that she has found many rewards living on 
     land that has been unchanged over time. The Yateses put 215 
     acres in an easement.
       The couple knew they could profit from their land, but they 
     ``couldn't swallow the idea of houses built all over it,'' 
     Yates said. ``Your conscience falls in somewhere.''
       As she led a tour of her ranch, Yates stood on a ridgeline 
     and gazed at the striking landscape of canyons, meadows and 
     towering rock formations.
       ``To me, to stand out here right now, it's good for your 
     soul,'' she said.

     

                          ____________________